Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Bande Nere]

So far phase 2 of the Russian invasion seems to be a complete failure, hopefully it stays that way. Slava Ukraini!

LIES! Only the last month they have liberated 2 villages, a barn and Bikini Bottom. Everything's going according to plan. Normalna.

[Alastor]

Bikini Bottom

I think I'm missing some reference here.

[Mithradates]

I think I'm missing some reference here.

Heroic cruiser Moskva promoted to submarine!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Bande Nere]

I think I'm missing some reference here.

As per Mithradates meme.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

It seems Russia is begging Israel to send weapons to Ukraine, as the terrorists hold a metting with Hamas.

[conon394]

So far phase 2 of the Russian invasion seems to be a complete failure, hopefully it stays that way. Slava Ukraini!

So what is your call for the big parade than. Is Putin going to triple down and declare War/State of Emergency/Whatever he needs to toss in the conscripts and ill trained reserves in a third round and hope he can beat more western arms and sanctions to the front. Or declare victory more or less and start negotiations to keep his land bridge to Crimea and the bits of the Donbas he has and hope western/NATO/European resolve will falter.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

So what is your call for the big parade than. Is Putin going to triple down and declare War/State of Emergency/Whatever he needs to toss in the conscripts and ill trained reserves in a third round and hope he can beat more western arms and sanctions to the front. Or declare victory more or less and start negotiations to keep his land bridge to Crimea and the bits of the Donbas he has and hope western/NATO/European resolve will falter.

They've already attempted to walk back any plans for a big victory declaration, as Lavrov stated not long ago that that date has no relation to the events in Ukraine. I also have my doubts that Putin will declare a war, as that means the military operation failed beyond any shred of doubt, in direct contradiction to the messages delivered to the public that it's all going according to plan.
So personally I think the likeliest outcome for the parade is nothing special. A declaration of war is possible, but would be humiliating, which makes it less likely for a regime that is too stubborn to even retract antisemetic statements.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That sounds like a retreat from Austin's position, which clearly states an aim that goes beyond the defense of the Ukraine.

Mileage may vary as to whether I’m underestimating or you’re overestimating Austin’s remarks, but here’s what I believe you’re referring to:

We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine…..So it has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.

We can all speculate about going “beyond Ukraine.” Russian leadership, for example, has said they want to secure a path to Transnistria and recently shut off gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria. All the more reason for the US to seek to undermine the Kremlin’s capacity to do these invasions, whether it’s Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014 or Ukraine in 2022, because US leadership understands Ukraine is potentially the beginning of Putin’s quest to “make Russia great again,” not the end. That’s entirely consistent with what you’ve described as being “united on the idea that invading a country and robbing it of its right of democratic self determination is evil.” The shift is that US intel expected Kiev to fall in a few days but instead the Ukrainians have pushed the enemy back. That’s what Austin’s commentary reflects IMO.

In that sense it justifies Ludicus' position that the US has ulterior motives for supporting Ukraine.

Accusing US policymakers of Machiavellian cynicism is easy to do because it’s not falsifiable. Trouble is that US support for Ukraine is consistent with longstanding US policy. The idea the US has masterminded the circumstances of Putin’s invasion in order to trick the Kremlin into weakening itself by invading (which is Ludicus’ position) would require US leadership to have incredible unity, foresight and control through however many years or decades, all while being reasonably certain of how and when Putin would react. In a word, conspiracy. I don’t think that’s how geopolitics works, but more importantly, I don’t think that can be deduced from a single comment. Do you?

The question is why. It is one thing to have a motivation, and another to state it publicly. This seems entirely unnecessary and possibly divisive.

Russia has invaded Ukraine. We’re well past the point of being divisive. I can’t speak to Austin’s motivations or how prepared those particular remarks were, but I think supporting Ukraine rhetorically as well as materially is a higher priority for US leaders than worrying about whether what they say makes Putin angry. To that end, it’s reasonable to suppose Austin is communicating to Ukraine and to the world that we share their interest in degrading Russia’s ability to make war on them, an interest which, as he said, Russia has already accomplished alot of on its own.

For now, Putin remains intent on achieving his aims on the battlefield, but if the Ukraine is successful in halting his advance, at some point negotiations will have to take place.

All the more reason for the US to publicly back as strong a negotiating position as possible for the Ukrainians.

If then the promise of continued US support for Ukraine stands in the way of a quick termination of a compromise, we will see the unity of the Western world crumble into yet another coalition of the (un)willing. Of course, it could just be the US setting themselves up to act as the 'bad cop', but history tells us that's not how the US rolls.

This assumes the Kremlin (or even the Ukrainians) are capable of a quick compromise at this juncture. The Kremlin has killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians, destroyed much of the country, and begun ethnically cleansing occupied areas. They intend to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. Are you suggesting if the US backed off instead of doubling down at this stage, that would improve Ukraine’s negotiating position?

Interestingly, the cold war narrative in Western Europe used to be "we need the American nukes, because without them, the Soviet army would just roll over us", often pointing to manpower without taking into consideration the state of the Soviet military". I suppose in hindsight that was a monstrous lie. It's in fact Russia that is in that position.

It’s true that Russia is not the USSR. I don’t think that just because the Kremlin has oversold its military prowess since Putin took power, the USSR was a paper tiger, or what relevance that has to NATO’s value proposition today. It was one of the most powerful countries in history. Countries joined NATO because they wanted to, and still do.

No that was a distant second. The reality was the US were "containing Communism". Under the motto "everything better than a country with communist/socialist tendencies" they took whichever side was expedient, whether it meant defending democracy or destroying it.

The only way to contain communism is to convince your allies to do it with you, and they won’t want to do that if they feel like you’ll bolt when push comes to shove. Europeans wanted protection from Russia and access to US markets, Asians wanted protection from Russia and China and access to US markets, and the US was/is the only power capable of making that kind of offer on a global scale. The point of the reference is the aforementioned stress test of the US world order. The Soviets were convinced the US wouldn’t defend South Korea, like Putin was convinced the West wouldn’t defend Ukraine/the Ukrainians wouldn’t defend themselves.

I wonder how history might have gone differently if they realized beforehand that assumption was wrong because, say, the US reacted more strongly to China in the 1940s or to Russian invasions in 2008 and 2014. Far from over-aggressively swatting at every ideological phantom, the US is approaching the limits of its political and economic willingness to hold up the ceiling for the rest of the world, and things are falling apart as a result. It will be as much up to our allies as to us to maintain the order or let it fade further in the face of coordinated attacks from US adversaries.

Currently, the West is united on the idea that invading a country and robbing it of its right of democratic self determination is evil. There's a vast difference between acting whenever this occurs vs labeling certain regimes as arch-enemies of the principle and trying to thwart them anywhere in all aspects and by whatever means, as per US cold war mentality.

Do you dispute the notion that Putin is openly opposed to the US’ rules based order and wants to see it end for his own purposes? The premise of Russian foreign policy is that they are entitled to do stuff like invade and annex Ukrainian territory, and and no one has any right to oppose them. It’s one thing when that entitlement means manipulating corrupt satellite states to do what the Kremlin wants. It’s quite another to launch the most devastating war in Europe since WW2. I’m not sure what value there is in accusing the US of having a cold war mentality when US adversaries are working overtime to validate - through action, not just words - that mentality and then some, to whatever extent it existed to date.

Being realistic about the nature of dictatorial regimes does not equate to rekindling that kind of attitude. And on that line, the West could fracture if and when the time comes to negotiate peace in Ukraine. That is why Austin's remarks are divisive and IMHO a blunder.

I’m not sure I follow. The global south, including major players like India, were broadly neutral or pro-Russia before this all started, and have refrained from joining in western condemnation since. If anything Austin is preaching to the choir. Putin planned on fracturing the West well before it has come time to negotiate an end to the war he started. His plan failed so far. Negotiations with Ukraine were already nearing collapse due to Russian war crimes, so I don’t see what comparable impact Austin’s remarks could have.

[Laser101]

So what is your call for the big parade than. Is Putin going to triple down and declare War/State of Emergency/Whatever he needs to toss in the conscripts and ill trained reserves in a third round and hope he can beat more western arms and sanctions to the front. Or declare victory more or less and start negotiations to keep his land bridge to Crimea and the bits of the Donbas he has and hope western/NATO/European resolve will falter.

Probably the easiest option for the Russians would be to pull back across the Dniepr at Kherson and blow the bridges. It'd provide a conveniently defensible position, especially since the Ukrainians don't have any amphibious capability. In Donbas, the situation at the moment is essentially a WWI-style trench war; a situation that heavily favours the defender. If Putin wanted to, he could probably shift to a defensive posture once the Azovstal falls, which would probably push towards a stalemate and a 'keep-what-you-hold' ceasefire arrangement. The Russians would have control over the Sea of Azov and a land connection to Crimea, but they probably aren't able to get more than that.

[Cyclops]

Probably the easiest option for the Russians would be to pull back across the Dniepr at Kherson and blow the bridges. It'd provide a conveniently defensible position, especially since the Ukrainians don't have any amphibious capability. In Donbas, the situation at the moment is essentially a WWI-style trench war; a situation that heavily favours the defender. If Putin wanted to, he could probably shift to a defensive posture once the Azovstal falls, which would probably push towards a stalemate and a 'keep-what-you-hold' ceasefire arrangement. The Russians would have control over the Sea of Azov and a land connection to Crimea, but they probably aren't able to get more than that.

Russia is experiencing severe stress even with its current posture, it had to retreat from the north to allow even the present extremely modest gains. Yes it can turtle but that doesn't gain it the stated war aims, assuming it can hold them as Ukraine is tooled up by NATO. I think Russia needs the sanctions stopped, and I'm not sure turtling gets them that now.

They're pretty weak, compared to what we thought six months ago. There is an increasing view eve their present reduced effort is unsustainable. It was inconceivable in February they would be chased out of Ukraine, the discussion was not if but when Kyiv falls. Now even the unlikely scenario of Russia expelled from the Donbas is appearing on the strategic horizon.

[antaeus]

Probably the easiest option for the Russians would be to pull back across the Dniepr at Kherson and blow the bridges. It'd provide a conveniently defensible position, especially since the Ukrainians don't have any amphibious capability. In Donbas, the situation at the moment is essentially a WWI-style trench war; a situation that heavily favours the defender. If Putin wanted to, he could probably shift to a defensive posture once the Azovstal falls, which would probably push towards a stalemate and a 'keep-what-you-hold' ceasefire arrangement. The Russians would have control over the Sea of Azov and a land connection to Crimea, but they probably aren't able to get more than that.

Their position is stronger in Kherson than it might first seem. There is still significant civilian population there, somewhere between a third and half speak Russian at home, and Ukraine needs to be the good guys for them. If you look on NASA's fires, you can see that most of the fires going on are out of the city - even though it is all within range of Ukrainian artillery. Ukraine are resistant to burning their own cities. This makes for a Russian advantage - they can send outgoing artillery from the city fringe with lower risk of return fire. But the moment they extend from the city they get whacked - so the fight has been seesaw across the flats to the west. So it forms an important bridgehead that can be maintained indefinitely that prevents Ukraine rolling up their southern flank like they're starting to do near Kharkiv.

[Mithradates]

So what is your call for the big parade than. Is Putin going to triple down and declare War/State of Emergency/Whatever he needs to toss in the conscripts and ill trained reserves in a third round and hope he can beat more western arms and sanctions to the front. Or declare victory more or less and start negotiations to keep his land bridge to Crimea and the bits of the Donbas he has and hope western/NATO/European resolve will falter.

Zelensky made it clear that Russian atrocities against their civilians make any prospect of territorial or political concessions impossible so Ukraine will not give up territory in the eastern part of the country to end the war with Russia, and they wont settle for a frozen conflict either.

[Muizer]

I’m not sure I follow.

The core of my argument is that the West is at present united against Russia because of the invasion. That to maximize support, you have to base it on the largest common denominator.

Instead, (and it is indeed, instead) the US, as per Biden's rhetoric and Austin's remark (and it is reflected in your post as well I think) approaches the invasion as an aspect of a much wider strategic struggle against Russia. It has a similar view of China.

That is not a sentiment universally shared in the West, especially in Europe outside the Anglosphere.

Due to Europe being dependent on US military might, the result is that the US seems set to dictate a path where Europe may not want to follow, as happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consider the changed attitudes towards military spending in Germany and elsewhere. The change doesn't come from the hawks, but from the doves. It's certainly triggered by Russian aggression, but it can't be understood without considering the presidencies of GW Bush and Trump. It's not so much a sign of agreeing with US foreign policy, as it is of anxiety about being dependent on it.

[Bande Nere]

THis might sound crazy, but I suspect most NATO members states would have much higher military expenses if NATO never existed.

[Laser101]

Zelensky made it clear that Russian atrocities against their civilians make any prospect of territorial or political concessions impossible so Ukraine will not give up territory in the eastern part of the country to end the war with Russia, and they wont settle for a frozen conflict either.

Unfortunately, he has a rather limited hand here. Ukraine's ability to continue the war is heavily dependent on Western supplies; if the US/NATO think Zelensky is being unreasonably stubborn, they can just threaten to cut him off.

[Mithradates]

Unfortunately, he has a rather limited hand here. Ukraine's ability to continue the war is heavily dependent on Western supplies; if the US/NATO think Zelensky is being unreasonably stubborn, they can just threaten to cut him off.

Why would the NATO cut him off? Ukraine wants to get back their territories/people, NATO wants Russia to bleed, win-win.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That is not a sentiment universally shared in the West, especially in Europe outside the Anglosphere.

Due to Europe being dependent on US military might, the result is that the US seems set to dictate a path where Europe may not want to follow, as happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consider the changed attitudes towards military spending in Germany and elsewhere. The change doesn't come from the hawks, but from the doves. It's certainly triggered by Russian aggression, but it can't be understood without considering the presidencies of GW Bush and Trump. It's not so much a sign of agreeing with US foreign policy, as it is of anxiety about being dependent on it.

I’m aware of the push for “strategic autonomy” over the years. This was 4 years ago:

U.S. President Donald Trump launched a sharp public attack on Germany on Wednesday for supporting a Baltic Sea gas pipeline deal with Russia, saying Berlin had become “a captive to Russia” and he criticized it for failing to raise defense spending more.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1K10VI

6 years ago:

US Vice President Joe Biden warned European countries against becoming too dependent on Russian oil and gas, saying it would be "bad" for Europe.

https://www.dw.com/en/biden-warns-eu...gas/a-19503334

8 years ago:

U.S. President Barack Obama told the European Union on Wednesday it cannot rely on the United States alone to reduce its dependency on Russian energy, as relations with Moscow chill over its seizure of Crimea from Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...A2P0W220140326

40 years ago:

President Reagan, impatient with the lingering of military rule in Poland, is increasing pressure on the Soviet Union by invoking new sanctions aimed at crippling the Soviet natural gas pipeline to Western Europe.

The new decision, announced after a National Security Council meeting, bans the sale to the Soviet Union of oil and gas equipment produced by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies and equipment built abroad under licenses from U.S. companies.

The White House is fighting the pipeline because it might add to Moscow's leverage on Western Europe if those nations become dependent on Soviet oil.

But the West Germans have told Washington the project will be built with or without American approval.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/06...2030393307200/

He soon abandoned the sanctions due to pushback from the Europeans. If Europe still has not learned her lesson and is content to continue providing a lifeline to the Russian war machine along the path of least resistance, she may never learn. And that’s ok. I know the comment that the US may end up standing alone with the rest of the Anglosphere is meant to be a warning, but it’s the historical norm, and it only makes me nostalgic.

Spoiler for hell yeah: 

I’m aware that Europe has reacted to the invasion with a sense of self-preservation and not ideological fervor. But that’s the norm, too. If you believe support to be lukewarm and at risk of fracture, I probably agree depending on the context. My point was Austin’s comment shouldn’t be seen as a material factor.

[Mithradates]

Bennett Says Putin Apologized Over FM Lavrov's Nazi Comments

Bennett accepted Putin's apology over Lavrov's remarks that Hitler 'had Jewish blood' and thanked him for clarifying the Russian president's position, his office said

(Russian sources reporting about the telephone conversation, not surprisingly, do not mention the apology or what Lavrov said.)

-

And now something completely different.

Russian propaganda:

1. US Marines on the island of Iwo Jima, 1945

2. Members of the American naval division in Okinawa, 1945

3. US Marine with an M1 carbine in the Marianas, 1944

4. Luftwaffe pilot in Junkers Ju 88 bomber

[Ludicus]

Interesting news,

Will the United States Run Out of Javelins Before Russia Runs Runs Out of Tanks?.

The United States says it has provided 7,000 to Ukraine.
According to the Army budget books, total production has been 37,739 since production began in 1994. Every year, U.S. forces use some missiles for training and testing. Thus, there may be 20,000 to 25,000 remaining in the stockpiles. These 7,000 systems represent about one-third of the U.S. total inventory.
That fraction doesn't sound like much; after all, two-thirds of the inventory remains. However, military planners are likely getting nervous.

Inability to Quickly Replace Stingers and Javelins for Ukraine ...

The sanctions have also cut off supplies of titanium from Russia, and that will cause Pratt and other Raytheon units to be late on some products. “It is, I think, the biggest challenge that we have as we think about these global sanctions on Russia,” Hayes said. “We did have a … significant portion of titanium forgings and castings coming from Russia. Many of those are now on the sanctions list.”

----


This is how dominant thinking becomes the butcher of free speech.Read Here
----
This article is not too far from the truth,The Dynamics of Escalation: 'Standing With Ukraine'

(...) How far might Biden go with this escalation? Well, the arms splurge is a no-brainer (another boondoggle), and Special Forces are already in theatre, poised to light a fuse to any escalation; moreover, the mooted no-fly zone seems to have the added advantage of enjoying European support, particularly in the UK, amongst the Baltics (of course) and from the German ‘Greens’, too. (Spoiler Alert! First, of course, in order to implement any no-fly zone, it would be necessary to control the airspace – which Russia already dominates, and over which it implements full electronic-magnetic exclusion).
Would this be enough? Dark voices are advising not. They want ‘boots on the ground’. They even talk of tactical nukes. They argue that Biden has nothing to lose by ‘going big’, especially if the GOP are persuaded to become accomplices. Indeed, it might just save him from ignominy, they urge. U.S. military insiders already point out that the arms supply will not ‘turn around’ the war. A ‘lost war’ must be avoided going into November at all costs.
How can this Neo-con-Liberal interventionist élite superstructure wield such influence when the broader American political class historically has been ‘anti-war’? Well, the Neo-cons are the archetypal chameleons. Loved by the war industry, a regular loud presence on the networks, they rotate in and out of power, with the ‘China hawks’ nesting in the Trump corridors, whilst the ‘Russia hawks’ are migrated to populate the Biden State Department. The GOP is divided on Ukraine at its upper representational level, but the popular base traditionally is sceptical of foreign wars.(...)

In fact, the GOP is divided on Ukraine Vance's Ohio win showcases Trump's endorsement power
Shortly after the endorsement, Trump issued a statement, Donald Trump Says Russia, Ukraine Should Work Out 'Some ...

“It doesn’t make sense that Russia and Ukraine aren’t sitting down and working out some kind of an agreement. If they don’t do it soon, there will be nothing left but death, destruction, and carnage. This is a war that never should have happened, but it did. The solution can never be as good as it would have been before the shooting started, but there is a solution, and it should be figured out now—not later—when everyone will be DEAD!”, Trump said.

----
Slovakia, Hungary Say They Won't Back EU Sanctions

Well,according to foreign Ukranian Minister Dmytro Kuleba EU countries that oppose embargo on Russian oil to be considered complicit in Russia's crimes in Ukraine.

Poland and Bulgaria might be fine without Russian gas for a for a few months — until next winter.


Croatian president says Finland, Sweden cannot join NATO

But the final decision is not in his hands, as it will be made by the Croatian Parliament.
------

Edit,
Putin apologizes for Russian envoy's 'Jewish Hitler' comments ...

The prime minister accepted the apology of President Putin for comments by Lavrov and thanked him for clarifying the president’s view of the Jewish people and the memory of the Holocaust,” Bennett’s office said.

Lavrov, think twice before speaking.What a stupid remark.As Orwell put it, "when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself".

[Muizer]

I know the comment that the US may end up standing alone with the rest of the Anglosphere is meant to be a warning but it’s the historical norm, and it only makes me nostalgic.

That could be something worthy of admiration if you're the only nations able to do it. But is it something worthy of admiration when it's the result of disregarding the wishes of your allies?

I’m aware that Europe has reacted to the invasion with a sense of self-preservation and not ideological fervor. But that’s the norm, too. If you believe support to be lukewarm and at risk of fracture, I probably agree depending on the context. My point was Austin’s comment shouldn’t be seen as a material factor.

Yes, this war is going on on European Soil. It could impact European NATO members. Their interests, and the way they are served should be leading in determining NATO's course. Europe wants the war to end. It wants to be secure from Russian aggression. But in saying this should be achieved by using the Ukraine conflict to militarily weaken Russia for the foreseeable future Austin spoke out of turn.

And sure, you can argue it's the US doing the heavy lifting, but if you think that means the US is entitled to set the agenda, that's not really an alliance then. More like some feudal arrangement between the lord and his servants.